Page 2 of 2
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 10th, 2022, 7:27 pm
by Silver Pie
Best explanation I've heard to date.
Luke wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 12:46 pm
3 Nephi 26
6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;
7 But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people.
8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.
9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.
10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.
11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 11th, 2022, 6:32 pm
by SJR3t2
Heck the Book of Mormon teaches against baptisms for the dead (see 2 Nephi (LDS 9:26) (RLDS 6:54-55), Mosiah (LDS 3:11) (RLDS 1:107), Mosiah (LDS 15:24) (RLDS 8:58-59), Moroni (LDS 8:22-23) (RLDS 8:25-27). Not to mention that the Book of Mormon teaches us we can not repent after we die (see 2 Nephi (LDS 2:21) (RLDS 1:107-110), Mosiah (LDS 2:33) (RLDS 1:74-75), Mosiah (LDS 15:26-27) (RLDS 8:61-65), Alma (LDS 34:32-35) (RLDS 16:228-234), Alma (LDS 42:13) (RLDS 19:94-95), Alma (LDS 42:28) (RLDS 19:111)).
Moroni (LDS 8:22-23) (RLDS 8:25-27)
22 For behold that all little children are ALIVE IN CHRIST, AND ALSO all they that are WITHOUT THE LAW. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such BAPTISM AVAILETH NOTHING— 23 But it is MOCKERY before God, DENYING the MERCIES of CHRIST, and the POWER of his HOLY SPIRIT, and putting trust in DEAD WORKS.
Mosiah (LDS 2:33) (RLDS 1:74-75) For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and DIETH IN HIS SINS, THE SAME DRINKETH DAMNATION TO HIS OWN SOUL; for he receiveth for his wages an EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.
https://seekingyhwh.org/2019/06/09/the- ... -the-same/
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 11th, 2022, 6:46 pm
by kirtland r.m.
Nephi records that after their separation from the Lamanites, his people built a temple "after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things" (2 Nephi 5:16). Smaller temples patterned after the temple of Solomon existed in ancient Israel at the time of Lehi in areas distant from Jerusalem. Israeli archaeologist Avraham Negev commented on one of these temples: "The most remarkable discovery at Arad is the temple which occupied the north-western corner of the citadel. . . . Its orientation, general plan and contents, especially the tabernacle, are similar to the Temple of Solomon."4 In other words,
Nephi's construction of a simpler version of Solomon's temple in a remote location once he had established his people in a permanent city was not a unique event in Jewish history, but rather an expected occurrence, a fact of which Joseph Smith and his contemporaries (including especially his critic Alexander Campbell), lacking the aid of modern archaeology, would certainly have been unaware. Noel B. Reynolds, "By Objective Measures: Old Wine in New Bottles," in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), Chapter 6, references silently removed—consult original for citations.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/evi ... nts/Temple
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 11th, 2022, 9:25 pm
by CuriousThinker
kirtland r.m. wrote: ↑December 11th, 2022, 6:46 pm
Nephi records that after their separation from the Lamanites, his people built a temple "after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things" (2 Nephi 5:16). Smaller temples patterned after the temple of Solomon existed in ancient Israel at the time of Lehi in areas distant from Jerusalem. Israeli archaeologist Avraham Negev commented on one of these temples: "The most remarkable discovery at Arad is the temple which occupied the north-western corner of the citadel. . . . Its orientation, general plan and contents, especially the tabernacle, are similar to the Temple of Solomon."4 In other words,
Nephi's construction of a simpler version of Solomon's temple in a remote location once he had established his people in a permanent city was not a unique event in Jewish history, but rather an expected occurrence, a fact of which Joseph Smith and his contemporaries (including especially his critic Alexander Campbell), lacking the aid of modern archaeology, would certainly have been unaware. Noel B. Reynolds, "By Objective Measures: Old Wine in New Bottles," in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), Chapter 6, references silently removed—consult original for citations.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/evi ... nts/Temple
The law of Moses, sacrifices, and the like, were carried out anciently. I don't see how that is an explanation for today's temples and sealings and baptism for the dead.
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 11th, 2022, 10:40 pm
by Shawn Henry
Everything pre-1834 is quite solid. It was May 1834 they lost the fulness.
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 12th, 2022, 11:01 pm
by Craig Johnson
CuriousThinker wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 11:45 am
I get why people can say those things are not in the Bible (excepting a mention of baptisms for the dead) because the Bible had plain and precious truths removed. But we are told the Book of Mormon is complete, with no errors in doctrine, and has the fullness of the gospel. Yet there is no mention of any of those things. The church says it is a restoration, which means it had to have been happening during Peter's time and after Christ was in the Americas. So, why isn't it mentioned? Not even a passing reference. We have baptism, the Holy Ghost, and the sacrament mentioned. Sealing power is mentioned, but that doesn't necessarily mean marriage sealings. Any insights or things to point me to explaining this?
I actually like this because it is completely uninteresting.
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 13th, 2022, 6:25 am
by Luke
Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 11th, 2022, 10:40 pm
Everything pre-1834 is quite solid. It was May 1834 they lost the fulness.
I think it was more around the turn of the century, circa 1890-1918.
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 13th, 2022, 6:29 am
by JLHPROF
Luke wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 6:25 am
Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 11th, 2022, 10:40 pm
Everything pre-1834 is quite solid. It was May 1834 they lost the fulness.
I think it was more around the turn of the century, circa 1890-1918.
Ahhh the "this far, no further" date debate continues.
We've got 1830, 1834, and 1890.
Anyone for 1844? 1978? 1990? 2020?
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 13th, 2022, 7:51 am
by Luke
JLHPROF wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 6:29 am
Luke wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 6:25 am
Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 11th, 2022, 10:40 pm
Everything pre-1834 is quite solid. It was May 1834 they lost the fulness.
I think it was more around the turn of the century, circa 1890-1918.
Ahhh the "this far, no further" date debate continues.
We've got 1830, 1834, and 1890.
Anyone for 1844? 1978? 1990? 2020?
Well, when do you think it was?
Plural Marriage (an essential component of the Fullness of the Gospel) was lost around that time. Not too difficult to understand.
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 13th, 2022, 2:12 pm
by JLHPROF
Luke wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 7:51 am
JLHPROF wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 6:29 am
Luke wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 6:25 am
Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 11th, 2022, 10:40 pm
Everything pre-1834 is quite solid. It was May 1834 they lost the fulness.
I think it was more around the turn of the century, circa 1890-1918.
Ahhh the "this far, no further" date debate continues.
We've got 1830, 1834, and 1890.
Anyone for 1844? 1978? 1990? 2020?
Well, when do you think it was?
Plural Marriage (an essential component of the Fullness of the Gospel) was lost around that time. Not too difficult to understand.
I think it says far more about the person picking the date than it says about Church or Priesthood authority.
We could add the first real temple changes in 1923. We could add the November policy in 2015.
It's no surprise you as an independent fundamentalist choose 1890-1918.
Shawn has repeatedly been a Kirtland era follower - Whitmer or Rigdon or Marks - not sure. Some doubt all Joseph's revelations except the Book of Mormon.
My opinions are my own.
It's not something worth debating because again it says more about the person than the doctrine.
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 13th, 2022, 2:39 pm
by Reluctant Watchman
Debating doctrine (aka truth) is a worthwhile pursuit. The church varies in its degree of apostasy any time they choose to move away from truth. Dates simply tag the timeframe of when deviations from the word of God occurred.
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 13th, 2022, 5:27 pm
by JLHPROF
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 2:39 pm
Debating doctrine (aka truth) is a worthwhile pursuit. The church varies in its degree of apostasy any time they choose to move away from truth. Dates simply tag the timeframe of when deviations from the word of God occurred.
Just as drawing a line in the sand says more about the believer than the truth they believe so also the things they will accept as the word of God says more about them.
We have those who accept the Book of Mormon. Those who include the Lectures on Faith. Those who extend it to the Book of Commandments. Those who accept all four standard works. Those who accept many uncanonized revelations. Those who accept new books claiming to be scripture from far ranging sources. And those who believe inspired teachings not in any scripture also constitute God's words.
Really we're no different than the Protestants, Catholics, Gnostics, Orthodox etc. in picking and choosing what we will accept as from God. (Maccabees? Pistis Sophia? Book of Jasher?)
Again it says more about us when we pick the point and say "a Bible? we have a Bible?"
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 13th, 2022, 7:00 pm
by Luke
JLHPROF wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 2:12 pm
I think it says far more about the person picking the date than it says about Church or Priesthood authority.
If you meant that “it says more about the person’s beliefs”, then sure.
Since I believe that Plural Marriage is part of the Fullness of the Gospel (and due to your intelligence and knowledge of what JS, BY et al. taught, I think you do too), it’s obvious that I believe the Fullness left the Church at the time the Church decided to give up that precious Principle.
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 13th, 2022, 7:12 pm
by ransomme
JLHPROF wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 5:27 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 2:39 pm
Debating doctrine (aka truth) is a worthwhile pursuit. The church varies in its degree of apostasy any time they choose to move away from truth. Dates simply tag the timeframe of when deviations from the word of God occurred.
Just as drawing a line in the sand says more about the believer than the truth they believe so also the things they will accept as the word of God says more about them.
We have those who accept the Book of Mormon. Those who include the Lectures on Faith. Those who extend it to the Book of Commandments. Those who accept all four standard works. Those who accept many uncanonized revelations. Those who accept new books claiming to be scripture from far ranging sources. And those who believe inspired teachings not in any scripture also constitute God's words.
Really we're no different than the Protestants, Catholics, Gnostics, Orthodox etc. in picking and choosing what we will accept as from God. (Maccabees? Pistis Sophia? Book of Jasher?)
Again it says more about us when we pick the point and say "a Bible? we have a Bible?"
It's all to test our faith.
Now, why not demarcate a before and after state? Is it not important to separate truth from error? Doctrine from precepts and minglings?
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 13th, 2022, 7:25 pm
by JLHPROF
ransomme wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 7:12 pm
JLHPROF wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 5:27 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 2:39 pm
Debating doctrine (aka truth) is a worthwhile pursuit. The church varies in its degree of apostasy any time they choose to move away from truth. Dates simply tag the timeframe of when deviations from the word of God occurred.
Just as drawing a line in the sand says more about the believer than the truth they believe so also the things they will accept as the word of God says more about them.
We have those who accept the Book of Mormon. Those who include the Lectures on Faith. Those who extend it to the Book of Commandments. Those who accept all four standard works. Those who accept many uncanonized revelations. Those who accept new books claiming to be scripture from far ranging sources. And those who believe inspired teachings not in any scripture also constitute God's words.
Really we're no different than the Protestants, Catholics, Gnostics, Orthodox etc. in picking and choosing what we will accept as from God. (Maccabees? Pistis Sophia? Book of Jasher?)
Again it says more about us when we pick the point and say "a Bible? we have a Bible?"
It's all to test our faith.
Now, why not demarcate a before and after state? Is it not important to separate truth from error? Doctrine from precepts and minglings?
Well, concern number one would be by setting a date, picking a point, or declaring a total Apostasy at any given point in time you could easily be missing out on further light and knowledge the Lord actually DID reveal after that point.
To pick on Luke and use the 1890 point as a point when the fulness of authority was lost that would mean you run the risk of rejecting actual revelation received in the last decade of Wilford Woodruff's life. Not to mention any revelation received by Lorenzo Snow or Joseph F. Smith etc.
Now I'm not saying that's what Luke has done but that IS what many fundamentalists have done - The FLDS reject the authority of EVERYTHING from 1890 onward.
You could also use the traditional Christians as an example. By firmly declaring the Bible contains all the words of God and canon is sealed they automatically reject the additional light of the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants.
Those who draw lines in the sand risk a lot. Those who put their stakes in too deep will often find they have to pull them out.
I'm not one who would automatically dismiss a claimed revelation by President Nelson out of hand simply because I might believe the Church went a stray at some point prior to his Presidency. Yet we have people here who reject everything Joseph revealed after 1830, after 1834, after 1837, or everything revealed to any man claiming authority after Joseph.
Imagine how much light is rejected simply because we think we know when God stopped speaking. And then we have the nerve to expect more revelation.
Of course we have to determine truth from error ourselves. But to set a stopping point of "apostasy" and say here's where everything that follows is false is beyond arrogant.
Re: No mention of sealings, baptisms for dead, or endowment in BOM.
Posted: December 13th, 2022, 7:53 pm
by ransomme
JLHPROF wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 7:25 pm
ransomme wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 7:12 pm
JLHPROF wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 5:27 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 2:39 pm
Debating doctrine (aka truth) is a worthwhile pursuit. The church varies in its degree of apostasy any time they choose to move away from truth. Dates simply tag the timeframe of when deviations from the word of God occurred.
Just as drawing a line in the sand says more about the believer than the truth they believe so also the things they will accept as the word of God says more about them.
We have those who accept the Book of Mormon. Those who include the Lectures on Faith. Those who extend it to the Book of Commandments. Those who accept all four standard works. Those who accept many uncanonized revelations. Those who accept new books claiming to be scripture from far ranging sources. And those who believe inspired teachings not in any scripture also constitute God's words.
Really we're no different than the Protestants, Catholics, Gnostics, Orthodox etc. in picking and choosing what we will accept as from God. (Maccabees? Pistis Sophia? Book of Jasher?)
Again it says more about us when we pick the point and say "a Bible? we have a Bible?"
It's all to test our faith.
Now, why not demarcate a before and after state? Is it not important to separate truth from error? Doctrine from precepts and minglings?
Well, concern number one would be by setting a date, picking a point, or declaring a total Apostasy at any given point in time you could easily be missing out on further light and knowledge the Lord actually DID reveal after that point.
To pick on Luke and use the 1890 point as a point when the fulness of authority was lost that would mean you run the risk of rejecting actual revelation received in the last decade of Wilford Woodruff's life. Not to mention any revelation received by Lorenzo Snow or Joseph F. Smith etc.
Now I'm not saying that's what Luke has done but that IS what many fundamentalists have done - The FLDS reject the authority of EVERYTHING from 1890 onward.
You could also use the traditional Christians as an example. By firmly declaring the Bible contains all the words of God and canon is sealed they automatically reject the additional light of the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants.
Those who draw lines in the sand risk a lot. Those who put their stakes in too deep will often find they have to pull them out.
I'm not one who would automatically dismiss a claimed revelation by President Nelson out of hand simply because I might believe the Church went a stray at some point prior to his Presidency. Yet we have people here who reject everything Joseph revealed after 1830, after 1834, after 1837, or everything revealed to any man claiming authority after Joseph.
Imagine how much light is rejected simply because we think we know when God stopped speaking. And then we have the nerve to expect more revelation.
Of course we have to determine truth from error ourselves. But to set a stopping point of "apostasy" and say here's where everything that follows is false is beyond arrogant.
I wasn't meaning to present a binary option in/not in complete apostasy. I think it happens in degrees. I find demarcations (turning points/points of apostasy) useful in determining truth from error. For one they give me a starting point, from which to embark on a quest for truth. God uses all things for His purposes. We need to trust, seek, ask, follow... As I said we are to learn to live by faith and to that end, have our faith tried.
An example: 1834 figures to be an important time, but not the end. At the very least, up until 1841 they were given the chance to reacquire the fullness of priesthood (D&C 124:28). Further investigation leads me to see that the Church forfeited building Zion and is still under condemnation. So as a body of Christ we have some repenting to do. So if this is indeed the case, then it would be pretty important to know collectively.
